Enjoy an Ads-Free ASFN - lighter and faster too! Become an ASFN-Contributor and help support the site.
Go Back   Arizona Sports Fans Network > Other Stuff > Politics and Religion

Welcome to ASFN Fan Forums! We're glad to have you here. Please feel free to browse the forum. We'd like to invite you to join our community; doing so will enable you to view additional forums and post with our other members.


Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 3rd, 2006, 08:36 AM   #1
wallyburger
Agent Provocateur
 
wallyburger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 17,854
A$FN: 15,000

'Take back the oil companies!'


Mike Whitney: 'Take back the oil companies!'
Posted on Tuesday, May 02 @ 09:46:31 EDT
The "N" Word

Mike Whitney, CounterPunch

Nationalizing the oil industry should be the central tenet of any progressive political movement. Evidence of the industry's involvement in the invasion of Iraq as well as its obvious complicity in corrupting the political system should provide ample proof that the oil giants are a clear and present danger to democracy and need to be put under state control.

In an era of oil scarcity we no longer have the luxury of allowing a handful of corporate plutocrats to decide the fate of the global economy. The industry chieftains have deliberately closed down refineries to lower production and enhance their profits. They have sluiced boatloads of cash into the political system to ensure that congress and the executive carry out their directives. Presently, there's not an inch of daylight between the Exxon boardroom and 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, they both operate off the very same script.

The oil industry is the primary beneficiary of Bush's war in Iraq. Industry executives had a place at the table when Dick Cheney carved up Iraq's oil fields for future distribution among America's elite corporations. Freedom of Information requests have provided "edited documents from the Cheney Energy Policy group. One of these was a map showing lease areas where oil drilling was planned (in Iraq). Another consisted of a list of 40 oil companies from 30 nations who were slated to get permission to drill for oil in Saddam Hussein's Iraq. The problem for the US and Britain was that their oil companies were absent from this list of those who were to get concessions..The US and UK would thus be frozen out of what was clearly one of the greatest material prizes in world history." ("The CFR Debates" Lawerence Shoup; Z Magazine March 2006)



This explains why the industry backed a bumbling oil-man from Texas who showed neither interest in policy nor aptitude for leadership. Bush became the draught horse for executing an agenda that would replace diminishing Saudi reserves with the second largest supplies in the world, and then, conveniently remove France and Russia from the list of competitors.

2,400 American servicemen and 100,000 Iraqis have now sacrificed their lives on the altar of corporate profiteering. Bush has spread his energy war from Central Asia to the Middle East; increasing the incidents of terrorism by 4 fold. The American middle class is being crushed by soaring gas prices and government malfeasance while well-heeled oil moguls trundle off to the bank with the largest profits in history.

Isn't it time we rethought the economic system?

Anyone who has watched the futures market knows that the present system is doomed. Nowadays, any disgruntled partisan with a Kalashnikov can take out a pipeline and send oil prices skyrocketing. Bush has only aggravated this problem by saber rattling at Iran. His rhetoric has caused an erosion of confidence in the market and sent prices at the pump soaring. And, this is only the beginning.

The administration is determined to take its war wherever oil is obtainable; inciting a global resistance that could persist throughout the century. This seems to be the war that Bush and Cheney covet, although their objectives are cleverly concealed behind the facade of the war on terror.

How can the market survive this type of volatility; especially when Uncle Sam is creating thousands of new terrorists with every misguided invasion?

The new State Dept report confirms that resistance to America's foreign policy is increasing violence exponentially. Bush's "smash and grab" neoliberalism is transforming the world into a free-fire zone putting lives and vital resources at risk.

The system is hopelessly broken and needs "democratizing" so that energy can be distributed evenhandedly according to one's basic needs.

If everyone needs access to energy to maintain a minimal standard of living, then we should recognize oil as a basic human right like water or food. There should be regulating-bodies to ensure that distribution is equitable and not arbitrarily doled out to the highest bidder. There's no way that the current system can make this adjustment when the availability of cheap energy is quickly disappearing.

We are facing a future of diminishing supplies and growing demands. We can either cooperate on a national and international level; creating the appropriate institutions for fair distribution, or follow the "Bush model" of military intervention and unrelenting turmoil.

The belief that the market's "invisible hand" will guide us safely to the other shore is nonsense. There is no "free market" in the oil business; it's a complete myth. Oil extraction in Iraq is conducted at gunpoint, the ultimate form of coercion. Each barrel leaving the country has been stolen through military force.

Is this our window into the future or is cooperation possible?

The world's main source of energy should not be entrusted to corporate oligarchs whose only interest is padding the bottom line. The world's resources are not the sole province of the "highest bidder".

We need an entirely new approach to energy policy; a vision that anticipates dwindling supplies, conservation, and the threat of climate change. The path ahead doesn't have to be littered with the corpses of those who fought to defend their countries from exploitation. There's another way.

It is possible for people and nations to work together for the common good. And, after all, we only need to look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Nigeria to see the dismal alternative.

Mike Whitney lives in Washington state. He can be reached at: fergiewhitney@msn.com

Source: CounterPunch
http://counterpunch.org/whitney05012006.htm
Registered Members don't see these ads. Register now it's free!
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

--Voltaire
wallyburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:10 AM   #2
SirChaz
Watch out for #1
 
SirChaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wandering the Universe
Posts: 8,827
A$FN: 4,000
Send a message via AIM to SirChaz Send a message via Yahoo to SirChaz
So the problem of not having a free market should be fixed by having an even less free market.


THe only way to effectively manage something that supposedly has a "dwindling supply" is the free market. As the author admitted we are in this situation because of government pandering and special favors in the first place.


Why not just take over and nationalize the food industry?
Because if that happened we would all starve.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
SirChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:18 AM   #3
wallyburger
Agent Provocateur
 
wallyburger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 17,854
A$FN: 15,000
Well, .... the "so called" free market isn't working so well and it isn't even a "free market". The Oil industry is protected and priveleged by " Trust " status and always has been. The market is supply and price controlled by cartels and monopolies, so maybe it is a system that has run its course and come to a calamitous conclusion.

We are bowing to an illusion. It is not a free market sytem.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

--Voltaire
wallyburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:27 AM   #4
LoyaltyisaCurse
Answers Before Questions
 
LoyaltyisaCurse's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 12,409
A$FN: 4,800
The oil market is about as free as terrorsit in Guantanamo...
__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"
LoyaltyisaCurse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:30 AM   #5
krepitch
Moderator
 
krepitch's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 9,881
A$FN: 11,789
Blog Entries: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoyaltyisaCurse
terrorsit
"Designated by the President as Enemy Combatant"
krepitch is online now   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:34 AM   #6
SirChaz
Watch out for #1
 
SirChaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wandering the Universe
Posts: 8,827
A$FN: 4,000
Send a message via AIM to SirChaz Send a message via Yahoo to SirChaz
That is exactly the problem.

I am glad we can agree.


However, making it less free (by state takeover) is not helpful, it is hurtful.


I wonder, why do the oil companies and other corporations lobby congress so heavily?
Because it pays to do so.
Because Congressmen have enough power to grant "special favors" in our supposedly free market that they are worth lobbying. THat is not a free market that is mercantilism and government favoritism.

I am sorry you believe that government is the solution to these problems when I see government as the source of these problems in the first place. Otherwise I think we are very close to being on the same page with our disgust for the status quo.

Putting government in charge of industry is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Take out the special favors, protect property rights, and make it a level playing field to open up competition. Only then will the consumer be in charge and not the plutocrats.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
SirChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 09:38 AM   #7
LoyaltyisaCurse
Answers Before Questions
 
LoyaltyisaCurse's Avatar
 

Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Chatsworth, CA
Posts: 12,409
A$FN: 4,800
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
That is exactly the problem.

I am glad we can agree.


However, making it less free (by state takeover) is not helpful, it is hurtful.


I wonder, why do the oil companies and other corporations lobby congress so heavily?
Because it pays to do so.
Because Congressmen have enough power to grant "special favors" in our supposedly free market that they are worth lobbying. THat is not a free market that is mercantilism and government favoritism.

I am sorry you believe that government is the solution to these problems when I see government as the source of these problems in the first place. Otherwise I think we are very close to being on the same page with our disgust for the status quo.

Putting government in charge of industry is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Take out the special favors, protect property rights, and make it a level playing field to open up competition. Only then will the consumer be in charge and not the plutocrats.
I think the Oil should be run by municipalities like the energy companies were before the so called "benefits" of deregulation.
__________________
Goin' "Double Maverick!"
LoyaltyisaCurse is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 12:18 PM   #8
CardFan67
Don't touch my tail!
 
CardFan67's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,171
A$FN: 3,000
Send a message via Yahoo to CardFan67
Regulation still occurs with private energy providers such as Edison, local gas companies and most utilities. They still have to go through the PUC for rate increases and attach justifications even if it to boost profit they are required to show cause.

I agree that the oil companies should be bound by the same restraints as the rest of the energy suppliers but in no way should it be taken over completely by the Government. IMO, of course.. PEMEX is a pretty good example of how something can become absolutely corrupt and dysfunctional...

The Department of Motor Vehicles is all anyone should have to say to prove that nothing should be solely run by the government... Some sort of regulatory agency I will go for...
CardFan67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 12:24 PM   #9
CardFan67
Don't touch my tail!
 
CardFan67's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: So Cal
Posts: 4,171
A$FN: 3,000
Send a message via Yahoo to CardFan67
The reference to PEMEX and a state run fuel system...

Quote:
Current situation

PEMEX, despite its current $77 billion in revenue, the company pays high taxes that contribute with a large portion of the budget of the federal government. Indeed, in recent years the company has only been able to make ends meet through massive borrowing, so that it now owes a staggering $42.5 billion, including $24 billion in off-balance-sheet debt because the Mexican government treats the company as a cash cow. The state-run company pays out over 60% of its revenue in royalties and taxes, and those funds pay for a third of the federal government's budget. If oil prices drop or there are no major new discoveries of crude, that could spell big trouble for PEMEX despite its immense revenue stream and expansion prospects. However, in 2005, with record-breaking oil prices (due to the Iraq war, economic expansion of the United States and China) the company has seen an unexpected excess of funds. To help capitalize the company President Fox has proposed to permit the company receive foreign investment. This is a controversial issue in Mexican politics. PEMEX has financed many projects through PIDIREGAS using private investment.
Not to mention the the quality of product is horrendous... sometimes as much as 90% fuel oil with the remaining 10% being an actual quality gasoline product...

Source
CardFan67 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 10:33 PM   #10
Redrage
Registered
 
Redrage's Avatar
 

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Phoenix
Posts: 859
A$FN: 1,100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SirChaz
That is exactly the problem.

I am glad we can agree.


However, making it less free (by state takeover) is not helpful, it is hurtful.


I wonder, why do the oil companies and other corporations lobby congress so heavily?
Because it pays to do so.
Because Congressmen have enough power to grant "special favors" in our supposedly free market that they are worth lobbying. THat is not a free market that is mercantilism and government favoritism.

I am sorry you believe that government is the solution to these problems when I see government as the source of these problems in the first place. Otherwise I think we are very close to being on the same page with our disgust for the status quo.

Putting government in charge of industry is like putting the fox in charge of the chicken coop.

Take out the special favors, protect property rights, and make it a level playing field to open up competition. Only then will the consumer be in charge and not the plutocrats.

Did you ever watch Star Trek the Next Generation much. If you remember there was hardly ever any problem that couldn't be fixed by reconfiguring the main deflector array to create an inverse tacheon pulse.

The free market is the invese acheon pulse of the libertarian.
Redrage is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 3rd, 2006, 11:42 PM   #11
SirChaz
Watch out for #1
 
SirChaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wandering the Universe
Posts: 8,827
A$FN: 4,000
Send a message via AIM to SirChaz Send a message via Yahoo to SirChaz
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redrage
Did you ever watch Star Trek the Next Generation much. If you remember there was hardly ever any problem that couldn't be fixed by reconfiguring the main deflector array to create an inverse tacheon pulse.

The free market is the invese acheon pulse of the libertarian.

Mock it if you will but we owe our standard of living to it.


Division of labor and the profit motive is a wonderful thing. It means that I can buy raspberry jam with no seeds and choose from 12 different types of mustard. I was serious when I said that we would starve under government food industry control. The is nothing to the free market but voluntary cooperation. The other option is coersion and control of others. When government gets involved in a controlling manner is exactly when the problems start. Too bad some people can't see that.


Wanting to nationalize and control things is a reactionary position and a power grab. It is anything but liberal.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken

Last edited by SirChaz; May 3rd, 2006 at 11:46 PM.
SirChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2006, 04:34 AM   #12
wallyburger
Agent Provocateur
 
wallyburger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 17,854
A$FN: 15,000
Quote:
When government gets involved in a controlling manner is exactly when the problems start. Too bad some people can't see that.
Well, lets redefine " government ". The unholy alliance of Corporate America and " Government " that has evolved has become the substitute for government.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

--Voltaire
wallyburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2006, 09:43 AM   #13
SirChaz
Watch out for #1
 
SirChaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wandering the Universe
Posts: 8,827
A$FN: 4,000
Send a message via AIM to SirChaz Send a message via Yahoo to SirChaz
Quote:
Originally Posted by wallyburger
Well, lets redefine " government ". The unholy alliance of Corporate America and " Government " that has evolved has become the substitute for government.

And if your author gets his way and is able to "nationalize" the oil industry will it be less of an unholy alliance? More importantly will it be better for average consumers like you and me?

Based on history, experience, and common sense I think the answer to both is NO.

Prices will go up, service will go down, and either the current one or a new unholy alliance will cement their power over us even more.

Honest competition puts the consumer in charge. There is no competition is a state run system. The state should ensure competition by making sure there is a level playing field rather than limit competition by favoring particular businesses or by controlling the production itself.

The very corporate state you lament was born when the government worked to nationalize the economy for WWI.

More of the same is not a solution.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
SirChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2006, 10:03 AM   #14
wallyburger
Agent Provocateur
 
wallyburger's Avatar
 

Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: via pacis
Posts: 17,854
A$FN: 15,000
You keep saying it will be the same, yet you won't address the remote possibility that something different must be done.
__________________
In politics, nothing happens by accident. If it happens, you can bet it was planned that way.

Franklin D. Roosevelt

"Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities."

--Voltaire
wallyburger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 4th, 2006, 10:37 AM   #15
SirChaz
Watch out for #1
 
SirChaz's Avatar
 

Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Wandering the Universe
Posts: 8,827
A$FN: 4,000
Send a message via AIM to SirChaz Send a message via Yahoo to SirChaz
Think I have addressed that it needs to be different.

You just won't accept it because you see government as the solution when I see it as the source of the problem.
Liberalism is rooted in liberty but unfortunately we have turned over ours to some suits in Washington. Putting more control in the hands of political interests when it has been political interests that have sold us down the river in the first place is just backward.

"Power corrupts" is an adage that I think is mostly accurate and our problem today is the people in congress and the federal level regulatory agencies have too much power. The problem with lobbying is that congress is worth lobbying in the first place!

If Congress can't punish some companies at the expense of others then the corporate corruption and law buying will go away.

Unfortunately that is giving up too much power for some people.

Power should reside with the people through honest competition not with the political suits that would sell us out to corporate interests and price fixing.
__________________
“votes are collared under democracy, not by talking sense but by talking nonsense.” ~H. L. Mencken
SirChaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
foreign policy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Sitemap:1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37